Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:11 pm
What do you Brits think about the way Spencer Flack painted his aircraft? 
Most US aircraft have no combat history, so they get painted in a scheme that represents a combat veteran. Not many Mustang owners want to refinish their Mustangs in Penseltucky Air National Guard colors after all, and most P-40 owners in the US are not likely to put maple leaves on them.
I say don't get your panties in a bunch! This is all supposed to be fun after all. As the hobby grows I think that paint schemes are growing more accurate with it.
Most US aircraft have no combat history, so they get painted in a scheme that represents a combat veteran. Not many Mustang owners want to refinish their Mustangs in Penseltucky Air National Guard colors after all, and most P-40 owners in the US are not likely to put maple leaves on them.
I say don't get your panties in a bunch! This is all supposed to be fun after all. As the hobby grows I think that paint schemes are growing more accurate with it.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:21 pm
cosmetic accuracy is paramount whether on the ground or for a flier!!! as to engine / equipment detail in regard to safety, i know some things need to be tweaked for a flying warbird in the 21st century & within faa guidlines here in the u.s., i would imagine it would be that way in any country overseeing flying safety issues. some post ww 2 / 20th century cockpit components / engine parts are not safety practical today on a flyable warbird.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 9:54 pm
let's make a repro of the mona lisa with tiger teefers & plaster it on a p-40!! 
accuracy
Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:01 pm
My two cents:If you got the money to afford these birds which is by no means cheap then you ought to have the money for a correct paint job and markings. Research? All you have to do is tap into this website and pose the question regarding markings, etc. This place is a goldmine and I dont see anyone wanting money for the info.I know that some people dont care but it sure makes for a stunning A/C.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:24 pm
I think where practical, historical accuracy should be observed, and if it can't, at least do it in the "spirit" of trying to be accurate.
While I don't have the resources to restore a warbird, I have had two 1920's era saxophones restored (as well as a collection of seven other unrestored horns from 1913 - 1952). However, since these horns are also "players" as opposed to museum pieces, I made some minor modifications for the sake of improving the practical playability of the instrument. The vast majority of the population would not be able to tell the difference. To a very discerning expert, these modifications would stick out like sore thumbs (much like some of the warbird paint jobs). To keep the horn completely authentic would have made it a more difficult instrument to play. I made a conscious decision to get the horns as historically accurate as possible, while still being practical enough that I could use them every day, but I made my modifications look so seamless that they appear that they came out of the factory that way.
While I don't have the resources to restore a warbird, I have had two 1920's era saxophones restored (as well as a collection of seven other unrestored horns from 1913 - 1952). However, since these horns are also "players" as opposed to museum pieces, I made some minor modifications for the sake of improving the practical playability of the instrument. The vast majority of the population would not be able to tell the difference. To a very discerning expert, these modifications would stick out like sore thumbs (much like some of the warbird paint jobs). To keep the horn completely authentic would have made it a more difficult instrument to play. I made a conscious decision to get the horns as historically accurate as possible, while still being practical enough that I could use them every day, but I made my modifications look so seamless that they appear that they came out of the factory that way.
Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:39 pm
Where does this tie in to the L-39s with Navy or T-bird Markings?
Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:40 pm
in my own private memorabilia collection authenticity matters too, in regard to display quality. my "aviation sh*t" in my home office as the wife calls it means more asthetically when displayed in it's deserved proper form. granted, the stuff is nothing more than physical aviation objects, but it's history, thus it commands the respect that it's earned. every aviation museum with anal retentive standards gets a thumbs up from me. my apologies to any proctologists on the wix!! 
Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:20 pm
krlang wrote:Where does this tie in to the L-39s with Navy or T-bird Markings?
I personally think that if it's such blatant inaccuracy for the sake of having a colorful piant scheme is okay...again, your plane, your paint. I myself like to see these jets in corporate-like civilain garb
It's when someone tries for a historicially accurate paint job and spends a fair bit of money to do so but only puts in a half-hearted effort in getting it right...what was the point? With the resources at everyone's Googling fingertips, it really isn't all that hard to get a paint job right.
Salut Olivier
Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:12 am
Salut Olivier
Ollie said:
I said I had personnal likings
U still have a pretty cool, darn&%$^%$@@# looking bird chief.
Shoot Olivier, why was it painted that way ?
Michel
Ollie said:
Ok then Michel, no ride in the Focke for you!
I said I had personnal likings
U still have a pretty cool, darn&%$^%$@@# looking bird chief.
Shoot Olivier, why was it painted that way ?
Michel
Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:15 am
It's heartening to check back in and see that many folks have the same basic feeling I do... August's post was particularly well thought out. The point was also made elsewhere that the owner might've had every intention of getting a historically accurate scheme on his new-build 190, but the paint shop might've misinterpreted... that's a fair point, one which I hadn't considered.
It's his bird, his money, and thus his to do with as he chooses. No argument there, and Tulio, I have no intention of "dictating" to him what his paint scheme should be. But as a historian, an author, and a professional modeler for whom accuracy is paramount, I cannot help but cringe when I see someone go only halfway on such a highly visible project. And speaking for myself, I'm willing to dig up schemes, provide camo patterns, marking measurements, historical background and so forth for absolutely NOTHING, just to see the bird done right (yes, even if it's not a "real" 190). There's many enthusiasts out here who know an awful lot about some pretty esoteric topics, and would be delighted to share that knowledge... all ya gotta do is ask.
And since someone asked, the II. Gruppe Kommandeur markings are wrongly proportioned, the mottling is questionable, the rudder carries Sepp Wurmheller's kill tally (from JG 2), and the cowling has a "modified" III./JG 11 unit emblem which looks more like a football team logo.
Lynn
It's his bird, his money, and thus his to do with as he chooses. No argument there, and Tulio, I have no intention of "dictating" to him what his paint scheme should be. But as a historian, an author, and a professional modeler for whom accuracy is paramount, I cannot help but cringe when I see someone go only halfway on such a highly visible project. And speaking for myself, I'm willing to dig up schemes, provide camo patterns, marking measurements, historical background and so forth for absolutely NOTHING, just to see the bird done right (yes, even if it's not a "real" 190). There's many enthusiasts out here who know an awful lot about some pretty esoteric topics, and would be delighted to share that knowledge... all ya gotta do is ask.
And since someone asked, the II. Gruppe Kommandeur markings are wrongly proportioned, the mottling is questionable, the rudder carries Sepp Wurmheller's kill tally (from JG 2), and the cowling has a "modified" III./JG 11 unit emblem which looks more like a football team logo.
Lynn
Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:44 am
Copy that Lynn, but still, it's a replica so historical accuracy is questionable goal.
Like putting an historical scheme on a Lancair.
Michel, the original scheme sucked, so we came up with something better.
And Fw 190s rule!
Like putting an historical scheme on a Lancair.
Michel, the original scheme sucked, so we came up with something better.
And Fw 190s rule!
Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:29 am
Ollie, it was specifically built as a replica of a ... wait for it... Focke Wulf Fw 190. Not a Lancair, as you flippantly suggest. FlugWerk went to great lengths to try and make the replica as correct as they could, so applying a historically authentic scheme would not be out of place.
Unlike, say, an Fw 149. But that's just my opinion, of course.
Lynn
Unlike, say, an Fw 149. But that's just my opinion, of course.
Lynn
Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:02 am
bdk wrote:What do you Brits think about the way Spencer Flack painted his aircraft?
Most US aircraft have no combat history, so they get painted in a scheme that represents a combat veteran. Not many Mustang owners want to refinish their Mustangs in Penseltucky Air National Guard colors after all, and most P-40 owners in the US are not likely to put maple leaves on them.
I say don't get your panties in a bunch! This is all supposed to be fun after all. As the hobby grows I think that paint schemes are growing more accurate with it.
We are putting our P-51 in the colors of a PA ANG P-51. I don't think it needs to be in it's original markings, unless it is a combat vet, or historic aircraft. Either way you should do the best and most authentic version of the subject you pick. But have a litle fun on the ones that fly. The ones that stay in museums, should be put back to as close as they can with no personal input. For Example, if a non flying museum is restoring a P-51, it should be put back together exactly like the one they are trying to depict. But if it is a flying one that has no big war record, then I think the owner can put what he likes with it.
Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:04 am
I'm currently having this dilema. My O2-A is still flying with about 80% of the paint it wore in Viet Nam. This paint is starting to show its age, and may win "Dirty Bird" Awards. I've been a bit reluctant to strip and repaint for the obvious resons, and have been touching up with whatever is "close". Now this would be historically accurate, but next to some of the more recent restorations makes my plane lok a bit long of tooth.
What do you all think?
1.) FACS never flew "new" looking birds?
2.) Go for an award wining resotration and strip it down?
What do you all think?
1.) FACS never flew "new" looking birds?
2.) Go for an award wining resotration and strip it down?
Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:07 am
I understand your point, but I see it as a double edged sword (not really, but I think I understand myself. Do I? )
With the 149, we did reproduced all the stenciling and markings just per the original (which we found on the airframe), but the eagle had to be modified to fit the shape of the aircraft. I screwed up on the colours (RLM 70 and 71 instead of RLM 74 and 75), but that's about it for this one. Even the Harvard is well researched for the roundels, code fonts, and the serial number.
Fanciful doesn't mean 100% inacurate.
)
With the 149, we did reproduced all the stenciling and markings just per the original (which we found on the airframe), but the eagle had to be modified to fit the shape of the aircraft. I screwed up on the colours (RLM 70 and 71 instead of RLM 74 and 75), but that's about it for this one. Even the Harvard is well researched for the roundels, code fonts, and the serial number.
Fanciful doesn't mean 100% inacurate.